| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jack Linthicum
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject: IJAF |
 |
|
In the mid-1930s the question of establishing an Imperial Japanese Air
Force, on the model of the British Royal Air Force, reached the point
of serious discussion. The IJN maintained its independence from
the Army and provided much of the offensive force of World War II for
Japan.
What if the Army had been able to create the surmised IJAF and cut the
Navy off from independent development of both land and sea based
capabilities? Assuming a 1937 decision, based on the dropping of the
unity idea, what would have been the consequences? The A6M fighter
had not been confirmed as a Navy aircraft yet, much of the development
of special Navy aircraft would have been curtailed and Army>s needs
for aircraft had not been ascertained with enough precision to provide
aircraft for their needs.
In the China War this lack of Army air ability had led to the Navy
carrying the burden of air attacks on the Chinese Nationalists, using
its dual
capabilities of both land and carrier based offensive planes.This
offensive against a weak opponent made the Navy air doctrine,
including the construction of airfields, designed to defend against a
weak enemy.
With a single customer, the notoriously corrupt relationship between
manufacturers and the military would have been even more pronounced.
An example was the requirement for some of the production to be
done by contractors, often small metal shops with a dozen employees,
doing essentially hand work for major contracts.
Because the Army had very few bombers and no modern fighters to speak
of, they were forced to "farm out" the air war in China to the Navy.
The Japanese Navy had a history of creating land-based aircraft and
units which made them unique in the world. (The U.S. Marine Corps two
wings are often cited as a contradiction of this statement)They used
these units to
attack the Chinese, often losing aircraft because they had no escort
fighters to ward off the Chinese Curtiss Blackhawks
and Warhawks. Only after the A6M Zero was made available was the
Japanese bombing campaign viable.
I would assume that without the A6M the IJN would have less or no
reason to contemplate offensive operations, especially one like Pearl
Harbor. If the Army ruled an IJAF, as assumed by those in the IJN that
rejected the idea, the missions would be Army in nature and the Navy
would be relegated to a protection of seaward flanks and minor
operations that created the perimeter in the Pacific.
This would confine Japanese operations in the Great Pacific War, as
they like to call it, to land operations, perhaps taking the Dutch
East Indies and turning towards India, but with little attention to
the maritime side of their empire.
My Source:
Sunburst, By Mark R. Peattie
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYtO_xt94JEC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=jap...
page 85 |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Jack Linthicum
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
On Nov 29, 3:13 pm, "BF Lake" <m...@nospam.com> wrote:
[quote]"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0127fa50-039f-42e6-96b3-
I would assume that without the A6M the IJN would have less or no
reason to contemplate offensive operations, especially one like Pearl
Harbor. If the Army ruled an IJAF, as assumed by those in the IJN that
rejected the idea, the missions would be Army in nature and the Navy
would be relegated to a protection of seaward flanks and minor
operations that created the perimeter in the Pacific.
Isn>t that what they did anyway?
This would confine Japanese operations in the Great Pacific War, as
they like to call it, to land operations, perhaps taking the Dutch
East Indies and turning towards India, but with little attention to
the maritime side of their empire.
No diff in the IO against the RN. Japanese occupied islands base the IJAF
fighter--which is a Zero?
IJN aircraft outclassed by USN aircraft from 1942 on anyway so what>s the
diff? The argument only holds if the IJN had superior aircraft which
otherwise they would not have given an IJAF. But the IJN did not have
superior aircraft.
Regards,
Barry
[/quote]
Zero was a Navy spec, the other company making Navy aircraft said it
was impossible to meet those specs and withdrew. The design team
rewrote many of the stress tables, used a new material (Super Ultra
Duralumin), put the first retractable landing gear on a Navy aircraft,
made an enclosed canopy to replace the open cockpit used on the
predecessor, in all a radical new design. Later found to be carrying
several flaws in this design. The Army had no use for such an
aircraft, which would have been designed and accepted after the merger
as postulated.
Argue: the Navy would not have conducted the Pearl Harbor operation
without the Zero. Probably the Navy would have conducted very few
offensive operations without the aircraft which they created for
themselves. Compare with the United States very parallel situation,
carrier aircraft are designed for use on an aircraft carrier. The U.S.
Navy did not have the luxury of a land-based aviation such as the IJN
had.
The Navy bomber, the G3M1, called Nell was far superior to anything
the Army flew. Basically the Japanese Army wanted to control the use
of air power, not necessarily use that power. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jack Linthicum
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
On Nov 29, 4:15 pm, "Raymond O>Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0127fa50-039f-42e6-96b3-19b0267445fc@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
In the mid-1930s the question of establishing an Imperial Japanese Air
Force, on the model of the British Royal Air Force, reached the point
of serious discussion. The IJN maintained its independence from
the Army and provided much of the offensive force of World War II for
Japan.
What if the Army had been able to create the surmised IJAF and cut the
Navy off from independent development of both land and sea based
capabilities? Assuming a 1937 decision, based on the dropping of the
unity idea, what would have been the consequences? The A6M fighter
had not been confirmed as a Navy aircraft yet, much of the development
of special Navy aircraft would have been curtailed and Army>s needs
for aircraft had not been ascertained with enough precision to provide
aircraft for their needs.
In the China War this lack of Army air ability had led to the Navy
carrying the burden of air attacks on the Chinese Nationalists, using
its dual
capabilities of both land and carrier based offensive planes.This
offensive against a weak opponent made the Navy air doctrine,
including the construction of airfields, designed to defend against a
weak enemy.
With a single customer, the notoriously corrupt relationship between
manufacturers and the military would have been even more pronounced.
An example was the requirement for some of the production to be
done by contractors, often small metal shops with a dozen employees,
doing essentially hand work for major contracts.
Because the Army had very few bombers and no modern fighters to speak
of, they were forced to "farm out" the air war in China to the Navy.
The Japanese Navy had a history of creating land-based aircraft and
units which made them unique in the world. (The U.S. Marine Corps two
wings are often cited as a contradiction of this statement)They used
these units to
attack the Chinese, often losing aircraft because they had no escort
fighters to ward off the Chinese Curtiss Blackhawks
and Warhawks. Only after the A6M Zero was made available was the
Japanese bombing campaign viable.
I would assume that without the A6M the IJN would have less or no
reason to contemplate offensive operations, especially one like Pearl
Harbor. If the Army ruled an IJAF, as assumed by those in the IJN that
rejected the idea, the missions would be Army in nature and the Navy
would be relegated to a protection of seaward flanks and minor
operations that created the perimeter in the Pacific.
This would confine Japanese operations in the Great Pacific War, as
they like to call it, to land operations, perhaps taking the Dutch
East Indies and turning towards India, but with little attention to
the maritime side of their empire.
My Source:
Sunburst, By Mark R. Peattie
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYtO_xt94JEC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=jap...
page 85
The IJAF had its own fighters that were as good as the Zero .
the army used the Nakajima. KI-43 "Oscar" and the KI-84 "Frank", the
KawasakI KI-61"Tony".
and others
if anything the army developed more fighters and more modern ones
its seems every japanese fighter was a zero the way every german gun was an
88.
[/quote]
Could point out that the Oscar was a dog, and the Frank and Tony only
reached operational service in 1943 when the war was essentially over.
a cite from http://www.aviation-history.com/nakajima/ki43.html
(The designer) came up with a similar low winged all metal monoplane
of very light construction with the Nakajima 12% in-house airfoil
similar to the Nate>s and, similarly armed (at first) with two 7.7 mm
machine guns atop the cowl that the Army had so adamantly called for.
(Nakajima staff and others were convinced that the trend in the world
was toward four and six , even eight gun fighters, with 12.5mm machine
gun and 20mm aerial cannon armament, but the Japanese Army Generals
scoffed at the air superiority fighter concept and had a ground-based,
political and ideological concept of warfare perhaps shaped by their
Chinese adversaries. Anyway, they needed a new plane and wanted a
lightweight, tight-turning dogfighter for an army support/counter
insurgency role.
In other words a Zero armed with two guns firing rifle ammunition |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jack Linthicum
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
On Nov 29, 5:50 pm, "Raymond O>Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1a25253b-9092-46ef-b97f-c928f63d5bfd@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 29, 4:15 pm, "Raymond O>Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com
wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0127fa50-039f-42e6-96b3-19b0267445fc@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
In the mid-1930s the question of establishing an Imperial Japanese Air
Force, on the model of the British Royal Air Force, reached the point
of serious discussion. The IJN maintained its independence from
the Army and provided much of the offensive force of World War II for
Japan.
What if the Army had been able to create the surmised IJAF and cut the
Navy off from independent development of both land and sea based
capabilities? Assuming a 1937 decision, based on the dropping of the
unity idea, what would have been the consequences? The A6M fighter
had not been confirmed as a Navy aircraft yet, much of the development
of special Navy aircraft would have been curtailed and Army>s needs
for aircraft had not been ascertained with enough precision to provide
aircraft for their needs.
In the China War this lack of Army air ability had led to the Navy
carrying the burden of air attacks on the Chinese Nationalists, using
its dual
capabilities of both land and carrier based offensive planes.This
offensive against a weak opponent made the Navy air doctrine,
including the construction of airfields, designed to defend against a
weak enemy.
With a single customer, the notoriously corrupt relationship between
manufacturers and the military would have been even more pronounced.
An example was the requirement for some of the production to be
done by contractors, often small metal shops with a dozen employees,
doing essentially hand work for major contracts.
Because the Army had very few bombers and no modern fighters to speak
of, they were forced to "farm out" the air war in China to the Navy.
The Japanese Navy had a history of creating land-based aircraft and
units which made them unique in the world. (The U.S. Marine Corps two
wings are often cited as a contradiction of this statement)They used
these units to
attack the Chinese, often losing aircraft because they had no escort
fighters to ward off the Chinese Curtiss Blackhawks
and Warhawks. Only after the A6M Zero was made available was the
Japanese bombing campaign viable.
I would assume that without the A6M the IJN would have less or no
reason to contemplate offensive operations, especially one like Pearl
Harbor. If the Army ruled an IJAF, as assumed by those in the IJN that
rejected the idea, the missions would be Army in nature and the Navy
would be relegated to a protection of seaward flanks and minor
operations that created the perimeter in the Pacific.
This would confine Japanese operations in the Great Pacific War, as
they like to call it, to land operations, perhaps taking the Dutch
East Indies and turning towards India, but with little attention to
the maritime side of their empire.
My Source:
Sunburst, By Mark R. Peattie
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYtO_xt94JEC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=jap...
page 85
The IJAF had its own fighters that were as good as the Zero .
the army used the Nakajima. KI-43 "Oscar" and the KI-84 "Frank", the
KawasakI KI-61"Tony".
and others
if anything the army developed more fighters and more modern ones
its seems every japanese fighter was a zero the way every german gun was
an
88.
Could point out that the Oscar was a dog, and the Frank and Tony only
reached operational service in 1943 when the war was essentially over.
a cite fromhttp://www.aviation-history.com/nakajima/ki43.html
(The designer) came up with a similar low winged all metal monoplane
of very light construction with the Nakajima 12% in-house airfoil
similar to the Nate>s and, similarly armed (at first) with two 7.7 mm
machine guns atop the cowl that the Army had so adamantly called for.
(Nakajima staff and others were convinced that the trend in the world
was toward four and six , even eight gun fighters, with 12.5mm machine
gun and 20mm aerial cannon armament, but the Japanese Army Generals
scoffed at the air superiority fighter concept and had a ground-based,
political and ideological concept of warfare perhaps shaped by their
Chinese adversaries. Anyway, they needed a new plane and wanted a
lightweight, tight-turning dogfighter for an army support/counter
insurgency role.
In other words a Zero armed with two guns firing rifle ammunition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
under armed but not a dog. it was similar in performance to the zero.
[/quote]
Oh boy! It couldn>t equal two guys with machines guns but it could fly
like a butterfly. Of course it was up against the third string: P-36,
P-40, Brewster Buffalo, Hawker Hurricane and Curtiss-Wright CW-21. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
BF Lake
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:13 am Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0127fa50-039f-42e6-96b3-
[quote]I would assume that without the A6M the IJN would have less or no
reason to contemplate offensive operations, especially one like Pearl
Harbor. If the Army ruled an IJAF, as assumed by those in the IJN that
rejected the idea, the missions would be Army in nature and the Navy
would be relegated to a protection of seaward flanks and minor
operations that created the perimeter in the Pacific.
[/quote]
Isn>t that what they did anyway?
[quote]
This would confine Japanese operations in the Great Pacific War, as
they like to call it, to land operations, perhaps taking the Dutch
East Indies and turning towards India, but with little attention to
the maritime side of their empire.
[/quote]
No diff in the IO against the RN. Japanese occupied islands base the IJAF
fighter--which is a Zero?
IJN aircraft outclassed by USN aircraft from 1942 on anyway so what>s the
diff? The argument only holds if the IJN had superior aircraft which
otherwise they would not have given an IJAF. But the IJN did not have
superior aircraft.
Regards,
Barry |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:22 am Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
On Nov 29, 4:21 pm, "Raymond O>Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]
What brit plane carried 12 guns? and the 8 .303s of Huddicanes and Spits
were found to be inadequate for shooting down bombers, later model spits
began carrying 4 20mm cannon.
[/quote]
That would be the Hurricane Mk IIB:
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/hurricane.htm |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 2:49 am Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
In article
<0127fa50-039f-42e6-96b3-19b0267445fc@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
jacklinthicum@earthlink.net (Jack Linthicum) wrote:
[quote]What if the Army had been able to create the surmised IJAF and cut the
Navy off from independent development of both land and sea based
capabilities? Assuming a 1937 decision, based on the dropping of the
unity idea, what would have been the consequences?
[/quote]
Well, one presumes they would not have been fool enough to let the IJAF
take over carrier aviation the way that the RAF took over RN carrier
aviation in the twenties. The Japanese could easily see the consequences
of that, like everyone else: obsolete aircraft on carriers.
But an independent IJAF based on army aviation doesn>t seem terribly
plausible anyway. The Army and Navy had an inter-service rivalry that
makes the worst of US Army vs. USN seem tame; getting outnumbered in
council would be bad for the IJN, and they>d know it.
--
John Dallman, jgd@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Raymond O'Hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0127fa50-039f-42e6-96b3-19b0267445fc@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
[quote]
In the mid-1930s the question of establishing an Imperial Japanese Air
Force, on the model of the British Royal Air Force, reached the point
of serious discussion. The IJN maintained its independence from
the Army and provided much of the offensive force of World War II for
Japan.
What if the Army had been able to create the surmised IJAF and cut the
Navy off from independent development of both land and sea based
capabilities? Assuming a 1937 decision, based on the dropping of the
unity idea, what would have been the consequences? The A6M fighter
had not been confirmed as a Navy aircraft yet, much of the development
of special Navy aircraft would have been curtailed and Army>s needs
for aircraft had not been ascertained with enough precision to provide
aircraft for their needs.
In the China War this lack of Army air ability had led to the Navy
carrying the burden of air attacks on the Chinese Nationalists, using
its dual
capabilities of both land and carrier based offensive planes.This
offensive against a weak opponent made the Navy air doctrine,
including the construction of airfields, designed to defend against a
weak enemy.
With a single customer, the notoriously corrupt relationship between
manufacturers and the military would have been even more pronounced.
An example was the requirement for some of the production to be
done by contractors, often small metal shops with a dozen employees,
doing essentially hand work for major contracts.
Because the Army had very few bombers and no modern fighters to speak
of, they were forced to "farm out" the air war in China to the Navy.
The Japanese Navy had a history of creating land-based aircraft and
units which made them unique in the world. (The U.S. Marine Corps two
wings are often cited as a contradiction of this statement)They used
these units to
attack the Chinese, often losing aircraft because they had no escort
fighters to ward off the Chinese Curtiss Blackhawks
and Warhawks. Only after the A6M Zero was made available was the
Japanese bombing campaign viable.
I would assume that without the A6M the IJN would have less or no
reason to contemplate offensive operations, especially one like Pearl
Harbor. If the Army ruled an IJAF, as assumed by those in the IJN that
rejected the idea, the missions would be Army in nature and the Navy
would be relegated to a protection of seaward flanks and minor
operations that created the perimeter in the Pacific.
This would confine Japanese operations in the Great Pacific War, as
they like to call it, to land operations, perhaps taking the Dutch
East Indies and turning towards India, but with little attention to
the maritime side of their empire.
My Source:
Sunburst, By Mark R. Peattie
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYtO_xt94JEC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=jap...
page 85
[/quote]
The IJAF had its own fighters that were as good as the Zero .
the army used the Nakajima. KI-43 "Oscar" and the KI-84 "Frank", the
KawasakI KI-61"Tony".
and others
if anything the army developed more fighters and more modern ones
its seems every japanese fighter was a zero the way every german gun was an
88. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Raymond O'Hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1a25253b-9092-46ef-b97f-c928f63d5bfd@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 29, 4:15 pm, "Raymond O>Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0127fa50-039f-42e6-96b3-19b0267445fc@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
In the mid-1930s the question of establishing an Imperial Japanese Air
Force, on the model of the British Royal Air Force, reached the point
of serious discussion. The IJN maintained its independence from
the Army and provided much of the offensive force of World War II for
Japan.
What if the Army had been able to create the surmised IJAF and cut the
Navy off from independent development of both land and sea based
capabilities? Assuming a 1937 decision, based on the dropping of the
unity idea, what would have been the consequences? The A6M fighter
had not been confirmed as a Navy aircraft yet, much of the development
of special Navy aircraft would have been curtailed and Army>s needs
for aircraft had not been ascertained with enough precision to provide
aircraft for their needs.
In the China War this lack of Army air ability had led to the Navy
carrying the burden of air attacks on the Chinese Nationalists, using
its dual
capabilities of both land and carrier based offensive planes.This
offensive against a weak opponent made the Navy air doctrine,
including the construction of airfields, designed to defend against a
weak enemy.
With a single customer, the notoriously corrupt relationship between
manufacturers and the military would have been even more pronounced.
An example was the requirement for some of the production to be
done by contractors, often small metal shops with a dozen employees,
doing essentially hand work for major contracts.
Because the Army had very few bombers and no modern fighters to speak
of, they were forced to "farm out" the air war in China to the Navy.
The Japanese Navy had a history of creating land-based aircraft and
units which made them unique in the world. (The U.S. Marine Corps two
wings are often cited as a contradiction of this statement)They used
these units to
attack the Chinese, often losing aircraft because they had no escort
fighters to ward off the Chinese Curtiss Blackhawks
and Warhawks. Only after the A6M Zero was made available was the
Japanese bombing campaign viable.
I would assume that without the A6M the IJN would have less or no
reason to contemplate offensive operations, especially one like Pearl
Harbor. If the Army ruled an IJAF, as assumed by those in the IJN that
rejected the idea, the missions would be Army in nature and the Navy
would be relegated to a protection of seaward flanks and minor
operations that created the perimeter in the Pacific.
This would confine Japanese operations in the Great Pacific War, as
they like to call it, to land operations, perhaps taking the Dutch
East Indies and turning towards India, but with little attention to
the maritime side of their empire.
My Source:
Sunburst, By Mark R. Peattie
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYtO_xt94JEC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=jap...
page 85
The IJAF had its own fighters that were as good as the Zero .
the army used the Nakajima. KI-43 "Oscar" and the KI-84 "Frank", the
KawasakI KI-61"Tony".
and others
if anything the army developed more fighters and more modern ones
its seems every japanese fighter was a zero the way every german gun was
an
88.
[/quote]
Could point out that the Oscar was a dog, and the Frank and Tony only
reached operational service in 1943 when the war was essentially over.
a cite from http://www.aviation-history.com/nakajima/ki43.html
(The designer) came up with a similar low winged all metal monoplane
of very light construction with the Nakajima 12% in-house airfoil
similar to the Nate>s and, similarly armed (at first) with two 7.7 mm
machine guns atop the cowl that the Army had so adamantly called for.
(Nakajima staff and others were convinced that the trend in the world
was toward four and six , even eight gun fighters, with 12.5mm machine
gun and 20mm aerial cannon armament, but the Japanese Army Generals
scoffed at the air superiority fighter concept and had a ground-based,
political and ideological concept of warfare perhaps shaped by their
Chinese adversaries. Anyway, they needed a new plane and wanted a
lightweight, tight-turning dogfighter for an army support/counter
insurgency role.
In other words a Zero armed with two guns firing rifle ammunition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
under armed but not a dog. it was similar in performance to the zero. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Richard Casady
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 5:54 am Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:45:25 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
<jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]Anyway, they needed a new plane and wanted a
lightweight, tight-turning dogfighter for an army support/counter
insurgency role.
t[/quote]
The Germans were smart enough to use the Stuka for that and it did it
well. The USAF noted that one Pilot, Rudel, knocked off more than five
hundred tanks, with 37mm gunfire, and only ten rounds carried. Came up
with Stuka II, with a 30mm AT gun and a thousand rounds. And about
thirteen or so bomb pylons. THe A-10.
[quote]In other words a Zero armed with two guns firing rifle ammunition
[/quote]
Six fifties would get you fifteen times as much metal in the air.
The Brits seem to have done OK with twelve rifle caliber guns. If you
go after troops, six times as many bullets will hit someone, although
a fifty makes bigger holes, and is more destructive on many targets.
Casady |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Raymond O'Hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:13 am Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:08f9d35b-4dfc-466c-a483-5d483b53afbd@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 29, 5:50 pm, "Raymond O>Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1a25253b-9092-46ef-b97f-c928f63d5bfd@k41g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 29, 4:15 pm, "Raymond O>Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com
wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0127fa50-039f-42e6-96b3-19b0267445fc@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
In the mid-1930s the question of establishing an Imperial Japanese Air
Force, on the model of the British Royal Air Force, reached the point
of serious discussion. The IJN maintained its independence from
the Army and provided much of the offensive force of World War II for
Japan.
What if the Army had been able to create the surmised IJAF and cut the
Navy off from independent development of both land and sea based
capabilities? Assuming a 1937 decision, based on the dropping of the
unity idea, what would have been the consequences? The A6M fighter
had not been confirmed as a Navy aircraft yet, much of the development
of special Navy aircraft would have been curtailed and Army>s needs
for aircraft had not been ascertained with enough precision to provide
aircraft for their needs.
In the China War this lack of Army air ability had led to the Navy
carrying the burden of air attacks on the Chinese Nationalists, using
its dual
capabilities of both land and carrier based offensive planes.This
offensive against a weak opponent made the Navy air doctrine,
including the construction of airfields, designed to defend against a
weak enemy.
With a single customer, the notoriously corrupt relationship between
manufacturers and the military would have been even more pronounced.
An example was the requirement for some of the production to be
done by contractors, often small metal shops with a dozen employees,
doing essentially hand work for major contracts.
Because the Army had very few bombers and no modern fighters to speak
of, they were forced to "farm out" the air war in China to the Navy.
The Japanese Navy had a history of creating land-based aircraft and
units which made them unique in the world. (The U.S. Marine Corps two
wings are often cited as a contradiction of this statement)They used
these units to
attack the Chinese, often losing aircraft because they had no escort
fighters to ward off the Chinese Curtiss Blackhawks
and Warhawks. Only after the A6M Zero was made available was the
Japanese bombing campaign viable.
I would assume that without the A6M the IJN would have less or no
reason to contemplate offensive operations, especially one like Pearl
Harbor. If the Army ruled an IJAF, as assumed by those in the IJN that
rejected the idea, the missions would be Army in nature and the Navy
would be relegated to a protection of seaward flanks and minor
operations that created the perimeter in the Pacific.
This would confine Japanese operations in the Great Pacific War, as
they like to call it, to land operations, perhaps taking the Dutch
East Indies and turning towards India, but with little attention to
the maritime side of their empire.
My Source:
Sunburst, By Mark R. Peattie
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZYtO_xt94JEC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=jap...
page 85
The IJAF had its own fighters that were as good as the Zero .
the army used the Nakajima. KI-43 "Oscar" and the KI-84 "Frank", the
KawasakI KI-61"Tony".
and others
if anything the army developed more fighters and more modern ones
its seems every japanese fighter was a zero the way every german gun was
an
88.
Could point out that the Oscar was a dog, and the Frank and Tony only
reached operational service in 1943 when the war was essentially over.
a cite fromhttp://www.aviation-history.com/nakajima/ki43.html
(The designer) came up with a similar low winged all metal monoplane
of very light construction with the Nakajima 12% in-house airfoil
similar to the Nate>s and, similarly armed (at first) with two 7.7 mm
machine guns atop the cowl that the Army had so adamantly called for.
(Nakajima staff and others were convinced that the trend in the world
was toward four and six , even eight gun fighters, with 12.5mm machine
gun and 20mm aerial cannon armament, but the Japanese Army Generals
scoffed at the air superiority fighter concept and had a ground-based,
political and ideological concept of warfare perhaps shaped by their
Chinese adversaries. Anyway, they needed a new plane and wanted a
lightweight, tight-turning dogfighter for an army support/counter
insurgency role.
In other words a Zero armed with two guns firing rifle ammunition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
under armed but not a dog. it was similar in performance to the zero.
[/quote]
Oh boy! It couldn>t equal two guys with machines guns but it could fly
like a butterfly. Of course it was up against the third string: P-36,
P-40, Brewster Buffalo, Hawker Hurricane and Curtiss-Wright CW-21.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and P-38s and other planes. not too many Buffaloes or curtid Hawks flew
after the first 6 months of the war.
and even the Zero made its name against those "3rd string" planes {toss in
the F4F to that list}.
against P-38s and F6Fs Zeros didn>t do so well.
its main problem was lake of firepower but it was less flamable than the
zero and had as good a range.
i>m not saying it was a great fighter none of the japanese planes were great
planes.
they all had flaws.
even the famed Betty bombers had serious flaws in lack of firepower and
survivability. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Raymond O'Hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
"Richard Casady" <richardcasady@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:494dd0f0.410173687@news.east.earthlink.net...
[quote]On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:45:25 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:
Anyway, they needed a new plane and wanted a
lightweight, tight-turning dogfighter for an army support/counter
insurgency role.
t
The Germans were smart enough to use the Stuka for that and it did it
well. The USAF noted that one Pilot, Rudel, knocked off more than five
hundred tanks, with 37mm gunfire, and only ten rounds carried. Came up
with Stuka II, with a 30mm AT gun and a thousand rounds. And about
thirteen or so bomb pylons. THe A-10.
In other words a Zero armed with two guns firing rifle ammunition
Six fifties would get you fifteen times as much metal in the air.
The Brits seem to have done OK with twelve rifle caliber guns. If you
go after troops, six times as many bullets will hit someone, although
a fifty makes bigger holes, and is more destructive on many targets.
Casady
[/quote]
What brit plane carried 12 guns? and the 8 .303s of Huddicanes and Spits
were found to be inadequate for shooting down bombers, later model spits
began carrying 4 20mm cannon. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
BF Lake
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
"Richard Casady" <richardcasady@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4950f5ca.419607750@news.east.earthlink.net...
[quote]On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:13:36 GMT, "BF Lake" <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
IJN aircraft outclassed by USN aircraft from 1942 on anyway so what>s the
diff? The argument only holds if the IJN had superior aircraft which
otherwise they would not have given an IJAF. But the IJN did not have
superior aircraft.
Do you perhaps mean 1943?
[/quote]
I keep reading that the Wildcat was just fine once they learned how to use
it--Thatch weave etc.
Regards,
Barry |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Richard Casady
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:21:14 -0500, "Raymond O>Hara"
<raymond-ohara@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
"Richard Casady" <richardcasady@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:494dd0f0.410173687@news.east.earthlink.net...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:45:25 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:
Anyway, they needed a new plane and wanted a
lightweight, tight-turning dogfighter for an army support/counter
insurgency role.
t
The Germans were smart enough to use the Stuka for that and it did it
well. The USAF noted that one Pilot, Rudel, knocked off more than five
hundred tanks, with 37mm gunfire, and only ten rounds carried. Came up
with Stuka II, with a 30mm AT gun and a thousand rounds. And about
thirteen or so bomb pylons. THe A-10.
In other words a Zero armed with two guns firing rifle ammunition
Six fifties would get you fifteen times as much metal in the air.
The Brits seem to have done OK with twelve rifle caliber guns. If you
go after troops, six times as many bullets will hit someone, although
a fifty makes bigger holes, and is more destructive on many targets.
Casady
What brit plane carried 12 guns? and the 8 .303s of Huddicanes and Spits
were found to be inadequate for shooting down bombers, later model spits
began carrying 4 20mm cannon.
[/quote]
I was under the impression that the Spitfire and Hurricane had twelve
303 guns. They would weigh maybe less than six fifties. Space might be
more of an issue.
Casady |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Richard Casady
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:22 am Post subject: Re: IJAF |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:13:36 GMT, "BF Lake" <mail@nospam.com> wrote:
[quote]IJN aircraft outclassed by USN aircraft from 1942 on anyway so what>s the
diff? The argument only holds if the IJN had superior aircraft which
otherwise they would not have given an IJAF. But the IJN did not have
superior aircraft.
[/quote]
Do you perhaps mean 1943?
Casady |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
